David Heathcoat-Amory: In 1998, the Government put into law their code for fiscal stability, since when the so-called golden rule on borrowing has been broken in every year since 2001. If we are to have any confidence in the announced Fiscal Responsibility Bill, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what penalties will apply to Ministers who break that law? Will there be fines or loss of office-or worse-for such Ministers, or is this just another Labour gimmick?

Harriet Harman: The reason why none of my hon. Friend's constituents would benefit from the Conservatives' tax cuts for millionaires is because they live in Glasgow, not in Notting Hill Gate. He can rely on this Government to protect his constituents with measures such as the child trust fund.

Bob Ainsworth: Seven weeks ago, I addressed the House about Mr. Charles Haddon-Cave's report on the events leading to the loss of 14 service personnel aboard Nimrod XV230 on 2 September 2006. As I said then, it was a tough read. It spelt out in detail the many failings both in the MOD and in industry that led to the tragedy. I wish again to express my sorrow for what happened that day, and to reiterate my sincere apologies to the families of those who died. I know that nothing I can say will bring those 14 men back. What we must do now is learn all the lessons, and take all the actions that are necessary to implement them.
	Mr. Haddon-Cave's investigations were wide-ranging. His report was thorough and detailed. I want to thank him again for his efforts, and for helping us to identify the changes that we need to make. Today I shall explain to the House how we are implementing his recommendations. Some of them are complex, and I am therefore placing in the Library of the House a more detailed written response to the 84 recommendations.
	This afternoon I want to focus on three areas: the creation of a military aviation authority, the changes that we are making to the management of airworthiness, and our relationship with industry.
	The Nimrod XV230 was lost as a result of a number of failings in the MOD and industry over a period of some three decades. Opportunities to discover and avoid the dangers, particularly during the development of the safety case, were missed. That was due in part to specific errors, but it was also due to the fact that the MOD'S aviation safety processes had become too cumbersome and complex, and lacked transparency and accountability. Despite the efforts of many hard-working men and women in the MOD and the private sector to deliver safe aircraft, the result was simply not good enough.
	The report recognised-and indeed welcomed-the many improvements we had made since the loss of the XV230, but it also made it clear that we needed to go much further. I agree, and I am today announcing the most radical reform of the MOD's airworthiness procedures since military aviation began.
	First, we are creating a new independent military aviation authority that will regulate, audit and assure all military aviation activity. It will be led by a senior-three-star-military officer, supported by a staff of about 250 personnel. He will provide the leadership on airworthiness, and also the independent assurance that we and our industry partners are all operating to the highest safety standards. He will have been identified and appointed by February, and the new authority will begin its work from April next year. The MAA will be independent of those who fly and maintain our aircraft day to day, ensuring that they operate fully within the regulations and are properly equipped, trained and resourced to deliver safe aircraft to the services.
	In proposing this new organisation for the management of airworthiness, Mr. Haddon-Cave wanted to ensure that there would be responsiveness in the face of changing operational circumstances, and that a safe approach would be adopted at all times. I agree, but in order to make his recommendations effective in the military environment, some adjustments are necessary. The single service assistant chiefs of staff must retain responsibility for determining that our aircraft can be safely released into service. The MAA will provide full assurance, but it will not carry out this release-to-service role directly. For operational emergency clearances, I have decided to opt for a tighter regime than Mr. Haddon-Cave proposed, under which the assistant chiefs-not those who fly the aircraft at the front line-will be responsible for any clearances. The MAA will play an assurance role in this area, too. This refinement of the Haddon-Cave model will deliver his intention while retaining operational agility, and improve on both our current and his proposed governance arrangements.
	Mr. Haddon-Cave also recommended a new approach to aviation safety cases. He was critical of our current approach, saying that it was bureaucratic and, frankly, missed the point. I agree. We need to make it simpler and more relevant. The MAA will rewrite our instructions to include the improvements that the report recommends. I have instructed that we examine how to apply this best practice appropriately across the whole of Defence. We are also auditing the standard of our current aviation safety cases to check that they are fit for purpose. Most of this work has been completed, and it will be finalised in the next couple of weeks.
	I now turn to the criticisms of our relationships with industry. The Department has been working with BAE Systems and QinetiQ to address their failings identified in the report. BAE Systems has announced the appointment of Dr. Chris Elliott to provide independent support to the group managing director in undertaking a review of the company's approach to product safety. QinetiQ has appointed Sir Robert Nelson QC to oversee the company's formal investigation, which will include a review of processes, structure and reporting. All their findings will be shared with us.
	Partnership with industry has always been part of ensuring that our troops are provided with the best possible equipment and support. We recognise that partnership does not mean that we can just transfer work to industry; we still have a role to play. That is why we are improving the skills of our people to ensure that we manage industry's activities on our behalf more effectively. A review of the contract conditions that we put in place with industry is also being conducted. We will institute improved checks and audits by the MAA on industry compliance. However, I acknowledge that we need to do more, so I have asked my noble Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, Lord Drayson, as part of the work that he is doing on defence acquisition reform, to establish a much clearer understanding of the different roles and interests of industry and of the MOD, and to be sure that industry's efforts meet our needs.
	In the course of his report, Mr. Haddon-Cave also criticised the personal conduct of a small number of civilians and service people who held positions in the MOD and in industry in the period leading up to 2006. A number of those individuals work for BAE Systems or for QinetiQ, both of which are conducting their own investigations, and a number of others are now retired. Neither of the two serving RAF officers who were named currently holds a position related in any way to safety. An RAF police investigation is being conducted into the issues raised by Mr. Haddon-Cave. I hope that hon. Members will understand that I am unable to comment further on these matters at present. There is an expectation that in some such situations, investigations are accompanied by blameless suspensions of the individuals under investigation. We will re-examine this area to develop a common practice for all MOD personnel-military and civilian.
	Mr. Haddon-Cave's analysis and conclusions on safety management in aviation have wider relevance, and we are looking to see what changes we may need to make across other domains in defence. He made a number of broader observations on areas that were not the main focus of his report. Mr. Haddon-Cave did not take evidence on the Department's approach to change management. However, I will ensure that his observations on these important issues are reflected in our planned work on the organisation and culture of the MOD, as part of the preparations for the future defence review.
	Every effort is being made by the Department to ensure that our armed forces are the best trained and the best equipped, but we must recognise that the work of defence is inherently dangerous. We ask our armed forces to place themselves in harm's way, and that entails risk. At the same time, any organisation that wants to learn and improve must change and develop; our armed forces cannot stand still in the face of developing threats and the need to work in hostile environments. It is also vital that we do everything possible to use public money effectively and efficiently. However, I am clear that change and development and the management of risk cannot be incompatible with a clear commitment and approach to safety.
	My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have been clear throughout that the Ministry of Defence will be open and honest about our shortcomings, and we will respond vigorously and face the challenge to improve performance. I regret enormously the deaths of those on the XV230, and apologise for the part the Department played in failing to prevent them. The measures that I have announced today reflect a personal commitment to improving safety in military aviation and the safety of our armed forces.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was a glaring risk to this aircraft that went undiscovered by many experts over 30 years. Most particularly, however, it was not discovered during the safety case that was supposedly put together to identify exactly such risks, but which failed so to do.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the appropriate level of authority on release to service, and we have spent a lot of time over the last seven weeks trying to talk about that. As the hon. Member for Woodspring said, in the military environment we need to make absolutely certain that authority lies in the right place. I do not want to remove that authority: the release to service will be vested in the appropriate level of the chain of command, but we will also make sure that no one lower than that will take operational risk. Therefore, if operational circumstances demand that a particular platform ought to be allowed to fly, that level of release will be needed before any such course of action can be taken. In addition, the MAA will have the authority to oversee and audit all the decisions that are taken.
	The reason why Mr. Haddon-Cave wanted to make sure that these matters were led at the appropriate level was to ensure the kind of authority and independence that the hon. Member for North Devon is looking for. That is why we are saying that three-star officer level is appropriate.
	That structure might change in time. We may well find that bringing other parts of MOD safety within such a construct is the right thing to do, in which case the authority would broaden to cover other areas. However, for the initial period while we are setting up the MAA, the focus needs to be on aviation safety, and the organisation needs to be led at the appropriate level.

Bob Ainsworth: I have had representations, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I hope that he understands that, for the reason that I mentioned in my statement, I do not want to say anything about any of the individuals. Two are still current employees who are undergoing investigation. It would be wrong for me to go into that area.

Bob Ainsworth: I pay tribute not only to those whose lives were lost on that XV230, but to the rest of the crews and servicemen who keep and have kept such planes flying for a long time. I pay tribute also to the families, whom I have met on more than one occasion. Yes, of course there is anguish and grief, but there has been a determination on their part-a laudable determination-to drive us to learn the lessons so that the loss of their loved ones is not in vain and we get to a better place in our systems and safety capability. They are to be applauded for that.
	On the criticisms that were made, there is no doubt that in this area aviation safety suffered. None of us can say-I do not believe that any proper reading of Haddon-Cave says-that we should not be driving for efficiency. Everybody wants an efficient service, and everybody wants to make sure that we are at the cutting edge in our methods as well as the equipment that we fly. But safety cannot be compromised in that regard.

Andrew Rosindell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to my point of order on 12 November 2008 to Speaker Martin, my subsequent point of order on 12 November this year, to your good self, Sir, and my general comments and remarks over the eight and a half years that I have been a Member regarding the flying of the Union flag-the flag of our country-from the flagpoles on the parliamentary estate, will you now give a progress report and explain what is going to happen in the future on this matter?

Meg Munn: I am sure Members on both sides of the House will be hoping for a positive outcome from the Copenhagen meeting as it draws toward a close. It is vital that an agreement is reached that will commit the countries of the world to work seriously together to tackle this international problem. During the summer I led a small Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to study the effects of climate change on some of the smallest countries in the world. The group visited Kiribati, Tonga, Vanuatu and Tuvalu in the south Pacific, which have populations ranging from 11,000 to just over 200,000.
	We heard from many people about how the effects of climate change are making their daily lives much more difficult. The Pacific islands are relatively poor, and the local people lack the resources to cope well with the extreme weather that is becoming more frequent. Some were angry that they suffer the effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions having contributed virtually none themselves.
	Most people imagine that rising sea levels lead to low-lying islands disappearing under water, causing local populations to relocate, but local inhabitants move long before that happens. Already in Vanuatu, the population of one small island has had to do so.
	High tides and rising sea water contaminate the drinking water, meaning that the only option for populations is to collect rain water to drink. On Funafuti, the main island of Tuvalu, the local council told us that owing to low rainfall, families are currently rationed to six buckets of water each morning and evening. Although the European Union has been able to help with the provision of large rain water collection tanks on the main island, as yet no means have been found to transport similar tanks to the outer islands. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that representatives from Tuvalu have made themselves heard at the summit in Copenhagen.
	Over time the land becomes saturated with salty water, making it impossible to grow food. At the moment, around 70 to 80 per cent. of the people on those islands are reliant on agriculture. We heard in Tuvalu that the island now frequently experiences high tides that lead to flooding. How can a small farmer keep animals or sow crops when fertile soils and fresh water are contaminated with salt water?
	Pressure will grow for the larger countries in the Pacific to take in climate change refugees. The reality is that no Pacific nation will be unaffected, no matter how large. More than half the population of the islands of the region lives within 1.5 km of the shore. We were shown maps that showed that within 20 years, the heavily populated areas of many countries will be uninhabitable.
	The visit brought it home to the delegation that climate change is having a profound impact now, and that the prospects for the people of the region are poor. Whatever the result of the Copenhagen discussions, I think it important that we in the UK continue to take what action we can to tackle the problem.
	All Pacific island nations have drawn up national adaptation plans with the support of funds from the United Nations, but we were told that the lack resources to implement the plans causes those nations a great deal of concern. Climate change experts at the university of the South Pacific were clear that without significant adaptation now, the longer-term prospects for the countries are bleak.
	Earlier this week, I asked the Prime Minister whether European Union money that has been allocated for assistance can be made available for adaptation. In his response he clearly recognised the importance of taking action. For many people in the world climate change is not an issue for the future: it is affecting them now.
	In the UK we are lucky not to face such immediate problems. However, we do have a responsibility to reduce our carbon emissions to mitigate the future effects of climate change. I believe strongly that by focusing more on energy efficiency we could begin to see dramatic reductions. Houses in the UK are responsible for a significant amount of carbon emissions. While there are many aspects to this which could and should be addressed, I particularly want to address the matter of heating and electricity.
	I commend the Government for announcing a boiler scrappage scheme in the pre-Budget report last week. Around 125,000 households will be able to upgrade their boiler when the scheme starts early next year. I hope that we can allocate further funds in due course as part of a rolling programme to replace the large number of old and inefficient boilers in use. The Chancellor said:
	"Inefficient domestic boilers add over £200 to household bills and 1 tonne of carbon to the atmosphere each year."-[ Official Report, 9 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 365.]
	That scheme will be a positive step in reducing household emissions. It has an added attraction in that it will bring down the average household energy bill, which will be especially important to those caught in the fuel poverty trap.
	It is important that we have financial incentives in place to encourage the next generation of low-carbon and renewable electricity. I know that the Government have been consulting on two mechanisms: the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs. I want to concentrate today on feed-in tariffs: the money paid for electricity supplied to the national grid. I think that we can make more progress. The Renewable Energy Association states that the Government are planning to meet just 2 per cent. of the UK's electricity needs from technologies supported through the current tariff scheme. That figure is far lower than the potential and considerably lower than other countries are achieving or working toward.
	If we pay more attention to that aspect of electricity production, we can encourage many more individual households and small businesses to become involved. The expansion of small-scale electricity production would help us in tackling climate change. It would also encourage technological innovation, followed in due course by the manufacture of the newly designed equipment.
	Around the world, tariff schemes have had positive effects on cutting costs of renewable technologies, as well as creating employment opportunities. They offer an incentive for individuals and companies, particular those already focused on products aimed at low carbon emissions. I understand that the proposed clean energy cash back tariff, scheduled to launch in April, will pay households which generate their own power from wind turbines and solar panels. They will receive money for each unit of electricity that they use in their own home, and also for the surplus energy that they provide to their local energy company. Both payments will be tax free.
	I know that the Government's consultation on renewable electricity financial incentives is now closed, and they have yet to issue their response. I hope that they will seriously consider increasing the proposed level of tariffs. The suggested return on investment of between 5 per cent. and 8 per cent. is not likely to be sufficient to encourage significant take-up. According to the modelling commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change, tariffs that deliver a 10 per cent. return on investment would result in three times the amount of renewable electricity generation by 2020 than will be delivered by the proposed scheme.
	Over the past few months, I have been working closely with one small Sheffield company in this field, Disenco Energy plc. It is close to the commercial production of the first viable micro combined heat and power appliance suitable for the domestic and commercial market. Currently the size of a washing machine, Disenco's patented HomePowerPlan is a highly efficient boiler and a 3 KW electrical system at 92 per cent. efficiency. That appliance will supply all the hot water and heating requirements of a home, and up to 70 per cent. of its electricity needs at peak times. That is obviously beneficial for the consumer as costs and efficiency savings result in reductions to annual electrical bills. Importantly, it can cut the carbon footprint of a home by about 70 per cent., reducing C02 emissions.
	The product is targeted at the domestic market as a direct replacement for the boiler. The company estimates that the cost could be around £3,000 when production gets into commercial gear. That would put them in the same market as many current new boilers, obviously important when trying to entice people to replace their old boiler with a new energy-efficient appliance.
	The other significant benefit of micro combined heat and power units is that they assist with electricity generation at precisely the times when there is significant demand, helping the grid to cope with peak periods. They also make a significant contribution to tackling fuel poverty. Elderly and vulnerable people, who currently hesitate to put the heating on for fear of the cost, will be able to heat their homes, knowing that by doing so they are also generating electricity and being paid for it.
	Emerging small businesses such as Disenco need the support that the Government can provide. They need a revenue system in place that provides incentives for householders to replace their old boilers with new products that can generate sufficient electricity that surplus can be sold to the national grid. They also of course need money to get their products to market. At a time when we have supported banks with billions of pounds, a few million pounds of investment could see these important new technologies in place in months.
	We face the challenge of meeting the UK targets of reducing energy use, while at the same time bringing to an end the excessive use of fossil fuels. Feed-in tariffs are one way of helping us to get there. Encouraging change is a huge challenge, particularly so during this difficult economic time. However, the possibilities of these new technologies fill me with optimism. They will reduce carbon emissions, ensure that people can stay warm in their homes, and importantly we will use less of the planet's resources. If we can encourage and help along this process, we can also help to generate future prosperity for the country.
	On that note, I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, everybody else in the House and all the staff a very happy Christmas and all the best for the new year.

Angela Browning: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that, at the time, I was one of the people who were extremely sceptical about how Westminster Hall would function and whether it would be of value. I do believe, however, that he was right and I was wrong. It has been a valuable debating Chamber. It perhaps does not have quite the clout of a debate with a vote in the House, but we would not want to see votes down in Westminster Hall. However, I agree with him. I am not saying that I am opposed to all change or that I am not a moderniser. Some areas of modernisation are good. Equally, however, I would always apply the test of whether they take powers away from Back Benchers and give them to the Executive. Whether we are Government Members or not, we are here to challenge and scrutinise the Executive and to get answers for our constituents. I think that litmus test needs to be applied.
	I want to mention something that I raised in an earlier debate. Sometimes, in the House, Members repeatedly make certain points to the Government, but when the relevant policies are put into practice it becomes clear that they have not taken account of the concerns espoused by Members. That is of concern to me. We hear a lot about invitations to stakeholders and Government consultations that never come anywhere near the House when the Government are implementing policies and legislation, particularly in relation to secondary legislation and guidance.
	I want to flag up another matter. Over the past couple of years, we have had legislation on disabled people who stop work or lose their jobs because of their disabilities and who then get into the cycle of going back to work. That critical area of returning to work worries me. I have asked the Jobcentre Plus in my constituency for a meeting with the people who assess whether somebody is ready to return to work. I am not necessarily talking about people who have been out of work for many years-the long-term unemployed-because there are different schemes for them. I am more concerned about people who have been out of work because of a serious illness-in particular, cancer-perhaps involving a lot of treatment and surgery, and who, as a result, are quite weak. I am also concerned about people with obvious disabilities.
	I have found the recent experiences of some of those people to be quite brutal and cruel-I would use that word-as I have explained to the House before. I saw a lady who had had a lot of chemotherapy and radiography following a double mastectomy. This was her test: she went into the room and they asked her to raise her arms above her head. She could, so they said, "Right, back to work!" Her doctor said that she needed to go back part time and to do it gradually, but they dismissed that. That is why I asked for the meeting.
	I have sat through many debates in the House on the need to get people back into work and on what happens when people return to work having been ill. During such debates, hon. Members on both sides of the House have told Ministers that we need to ensure that the assessors have the knowledge, expertise and medical background required to carry out proper assessments, and to ensure that they do not ride roughshod over hospital consultants and general practitioners who clearly know the patient much better than they do. It is not that those people are workshy or shirking; rather, they have had legitimate reasons not to be in work. I intend to follow that point up, but I am concerned that although I have heard it mentioned many times by colleagues across the House, for some reason what should have happened in practice has not happened.
	It would not be Christmas or the holiday season if I did not invite colleagues from all parts of the House to come and visit the glorious county of Devon during this three-week recess. They will be made very welcome in Devon. We have the most wonderful entertainment-I can almost hear the log fires crunching away in the background-and lovely food and drink from our wonderful farms. Hon. Members would be made very welcome, and they do not need to rely on British Airways to get to Devon from wherever they live in the country, because we have an excellent airline based in my constituency at Exeter airport called Flybe. It flies from all parts of the country into Exeter. We also have an airport in Plymouth. So I say this to hon. Members: do please come, you will be made very welcome.
	I have mentioned BA, so let me conclude with this. My telephone has a ringtone that I know is incredibly irritating to colleagues and which has become known as the BA tune-it is actually "The Flower Duet" from Lakmé. As it is Christmas, I have brought in my phone, in case you felt that you wanted me to hold it up and share the tune with the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am at your disposal, although I can see that you are probably not going to let me do that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Follow that! Let me reassure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not have with me my mobile or the BA tune, or for that matter Rod Stewart-I may go along with the sentiments of the song, but that is about it.
	This is an important time, when Back Benchers can raise important issues, whether they be world issues, national issues or local issues-the point is that we can get them on the record. None is more important than our troops who are serving on the front line. It is always difficult for those troops who are serving, but more so at this time for their families and friends. I am sure that the best wishes from all parts of the House go to our brave armed forces serving overseas. In addition, there are also the emergency services in this country-people in hospitals who work on Christmas day and people who work in power stations to ensure that the rest of us have a wonderful Christmas. We all ought to give thanks to them, too.
	I want to raise a local issue and take us to a village in Chorley, where the Willows sheltered housing can be found. Chorley has its own council housing, like everywhere else, but it decided to offload its housing and set up a company called Chorley Community Housing. Of course, we were given the greatest of promises: lots of investment to come; people to get new kitchens, new bathrooms and renovated homes; people to be supported in their homes. The Willows is a little special: it is a sheltered housing scheme. Chorley Community Housing said that it would invest heavily in the scheme and that, in fact, it would be not just a sheltered scheme, but an extra care scheme, which makes sense for Chorley, because there are only three sheltered accommodation schemes operating in the whole borough.
	Hon. Members can therefore understand how important the Willows is to us and to the people who live there-it is their home. They felt that it was the right thing for Chorley Community Housing to vote for, but they now feel that it was the wrong thing. What has Chorley Community Housing done, through and with the board of Adactus, the parent company? The chief executive of Adactus told everybody how well he would look after the people in those houses or in the sheltered scheme, only for us to find that people had gone down there-there was some spare accommodation-and been told that it was going to close.
	That is a sad situation, which has happened within two years. It is totally unacceptable for Chorley Community Housing, through its Adactus board, even to consider closure. I have to tell them: they have got it wrong. What they should be doing is investing the money that they have promised and putting the extra care in. Closure is not acceptable to the House, not acceptable to the people of Chorley and certainly not acceptable to the people who live there, who call it home. They should not be bullied and intimidated. Hon. Members should beware when such companies come along and make a lot of promises.
	It is important that we think about those in every area with no roofs over their heads and no homes, and no more so than in the Christmas period. When we think about people who are living rough on the streets, we can be thankful that the Churches and the charities will play their part to give them shelter and food over the Christmas period. However, in the case of Chorley-a wealthy community and a great place to live-it is absurd that we have a shortage of social housing and that, somehow, the council's responsibility to provide more is not taken seriously. In fact, the council has section 106 money sat there, not being spent, that could be used to provide social housing. It is wrong and it is-how shall say this? I could make it a lot stronger, but all I will say is that it is totally regrettable.

Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you. It is important that we take on those councils.
	My next point is about a UK border force. We should put such a force in place and support it. People come into the UK illegally, and drugs and guns come in and women are trafficked over our borders. We need to put a border force in place. Severely injured service personnel come back from Afghanistan who do not want to give up their uniform. They might not be able to go back into theatre, but we could use them to set up a border force if they wished. That would make a real difference, and give those people a future. They would be able to keep their uniform and help to protect our borders. We ought to look into that as a matter of urgency.
	Another issue that I am greatly concerned about is the child care voucher scheme. It has been widely welcomed, but it is delivered by private companies. How well are they doing? When I asked that question, the Minister who responded told me that the Government do not know the answer because they do not administer the scheme. That is an absurd position to have got ourselves into. Ministers should be on top of their brief. They should be pursuing those companies for their failures. People are waiting up to 12 months to find out whether their child care voucher payments have been made. It is not good enough, and Ministers cannot shy away from ensuring that those companies deliver. This is taxpayers' money. I hope that that matter can be taken on board as well.
	My next topic is the great question of electrification. It was good to hear the pre-Budget report, and the announcement that the Preston to Manchester line is to be electrified, because between the two lies Chorley. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) will benefit from it as well; it will make a real difference. We have overcrowding. We will get new, faster rolling stock, and there will be an increased ability for the trains to stop not only at Chorley but at Adlington. At the moment, we have the absurd situation of trains not stopping because of overcrowding. The answer is to put more trains on, and that is something that Network Rail and the train operators need to consider. Electrification will give us a lot more options. We are also getting the new station at Buckshaw village, with the new park-and-ride scheme. Electrification will mean cleaner, greener trains. We can build on that development, and I am pleased that the Government have listened to my campaign and are delivering on it. I know that my hon. Friend will agree with me on that.
	The Coppull railway station on the west coast main line was closed under Beeching. It is now time for that village to be reconnected, through the re-opening of that station.

Lindsay Hoyle: I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a lot of room for improvement, especially in the standard of rolling stock. After electrification, our rolling stock could be handed over and used elsewhere on the train network. It is not old; it is just too small and cannot carry enough passengers. The major line between Preston and Manchester needs longer, faster trains with greater capacity.
	My next point is about bus routes. The county council has been looking into them, and we have now lost the direct link that existed for a long time between Blackburn and Chorley. The buses used to come along Eaves lane and pick people up at the bottom of Great Knowley. That bus now goes via the hospital, which is good. However, a lot of people in Lower Wheelton and other areas can no longer use that connection. When bus routes are changed, we need to talk to the people who use them to find out which routes would be the most beneficial, rather than asking someone who sits in an office in a white tower somewhere who says, "I think this is the best route because I looked at it on a map." That is not good enough. We need to empower local people so that they can say which bus routes they want, and where they should go.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the season of good will, and I wish you and all the staff of the House all the best at Christmas. Let us have a better year next year in the House. I look forward to that, and I wish all hon. Members on both sides of the House all the best for Christmas and the new year.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), but I am particularly pleased to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) and for Orpington (Mr. Horam). We will miss their presence in Parliament. They have both made serious contributions to this House over the years that they have been Members. I started my ministerial political career with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, when she was a junior Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I was a ministerial special adviser. I have therefore worked with her closely over a number of years, and I know that she has made a terrific contribution to this House.
	I vie with my hon. Friend, however, in representing one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country. While she was exhorting everybody to go and spend their Christmas in the villages and towns of Devon, I can say that the honey-coloured villages of the Cotswolds look particularly picturesque at this time of year, especially if it snows, and I encourage everybody to come and spend time in the Cotswolds over Christmas.
	In the few minutes that are available to me, I shall concentrate not on singing "The twelve days of Christmas", but on discussing the 12 years of this Labour Government and how that has affected my constituency. I have to say that it will not be a flattering account.
	In the first year of Labour, we witnessed the beginning of the move away from local authority power, with the introduction of the regional development agencies. The South West of England Regional Development Agency had the wisdom not to appoint a single member from Gloucestershire to its board. It is therefore no surprise to me that Gloucestershire has ever since lost out in RDA grants. The RDAs are not particularly good at objectively stating how they come to their decisions, and they tend to make inconsistent decisions between themselves. I therefore look forward to the coming of a Conservative Government, who will bring about changes in the RDAs.
	In the second year of Labour, there was the refusal to fund what I have dubbed the missing link. One can drive on a dual carriageway all the way from Palermo in Sicily in southern Italy to Perth in the middle of Scotland, except for a little missing link in my constituency, joining the M4 to the M5. Although I have campaigned consistently since becoming a Member of Parliament for that link to be built, it never has been, and the cost of doing so is ever rising, while there are more deaths and there is more congestion. I urge this Government-or perhaps I shall soon be needing to urge another Government of a better political hue-to build it.
	The third year of Labour gave hope to many of my constituents, because the Government published a rural White Paper. At first, we thought they were a sinner who had repented, because although they were not known for helping the rural areas, it seemed to promise some real hope for the future. Unfortunately, that was very quickly followed by the fourth year of Labour, when the foot and mouth crisis took hold throughout the country. Many of my farmers were very severely hit and, unfortunately, they are still reminded of that as the Government are now saying that they must bear the cost of any future such outbreaks. My farmers are extremely worried about that because the Government do not have control over what may cause foot and mouth in the first place, as we saw from the outbreak in the Government's own research institute in Surrey.
	The fifth year of Labour gave my county its biggest ever increase in council tax. An increase of 8.3 per cent. across the country spawned a rise-this is the correct figure-of more than 50 per cent. in the police precept for the county in that year. The sixth year of Labour brought the beginning of the regional fire control centre, to be built in Taunton. That is a massively unpopular enterprise, given that Gloucestershire has one of the best working tri-centre control rooms, in Quedgeley, just outside Gloucester, where the police, fire and ambulance services work superbly together. Having seen the benefits of that, the Government decided in their wisdom to build a regional control centre. That was initially expected to cost £100 million, but this Government are so incompetent at managing finance that the latest estimate is that it will cost £1.5 billion. Why they could not have just left things alone when they were working perfectly properly, I do not know.
	The seventh year of Labour gave us the regional spatial strategies, despite my best efforts on behalf of the Opposition to oppose them. I was told by the Government, who were putting them through Committee-one can see this if one looks through  Hansard-that they were a creature of the Deputy Prime Minister. In other words, the then Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was desperately trying to get control of the rural areas and, in particular, of planning in those areas, and so he invented the regional spatial strategies. I am delighted that my colleagues who are shadowing the Department for Communities and Local Government will scrap them, and I hope very much that they have the opportunity to do so. These strategies are an unnecessary and unwanted tier of local government.
	The eighth year of Labour saw the introduction of a most shambolic piece of legislation: the Hunting Act 2004, which came into force on 18 February 2005. It wasted more than 700 hours of time in this House. Whatever one's views on hunting, one must say that the process has led to a shambolic and unworkable Act, which is unsatisfactory.
	In the ninth year of Labour, the Government's action weakened health care provision across the Cotswolds. In that year, Fairford hospital closed because of the severe financial constraints imposed on Costwold and Vale primary care trust. Gloucestershire county council's health overview and scrutiny committee noted that the move
	"has had a detrimental effect on the health and experience of the local residents".
	Far more seriously in that year was the Government's imposed merger of the excellent Gloucestershire ambulance trust with Wiltshire and Avon's ambulance trusts. I warned at the time that that would cost lives and I take no pleasure in saying that it did cost lives. It delivered a poorer service, but I am glad to say that because of the pressure that my colleagues in the county and I have brought on that trust, it is beginning at long last-several years later-to improve its service. My best Christmas wish to my constituents-in fact, this is four years overdue-is that the long-promised new hospital in Moreton-in-Marsh will come to fruition in 2010.
	The flood damage in the 10th year of Labour was, of course, not the Government's fault. I cannot lay the blame for that at their door, much as I would like to do so-I am sure that they can control all acts of God! What I can blame them for is their lack of action. Some 300 homes in my constituency were flooded, as were several schools, doctors' surgeries and other institutions. Two years on from the horrific floods that hit Gloucestershire in 2007, I still do not have total confidence that the same thing would not happen again. Some work has been carried out, but I am not totally confident that the incidents that brought about the cutting off of Mythe water works, which left many thousands of people without water, and that almost took out the substation in Gloucester-that would have left 500,000 people without electricity-would not be caused again.
	In the 11th year of Labour came a decision to exclude the Swindon to Kemble railway line doubling, which is much needed and would be a very beneficial piece of infrastructure improvement at a relatively reasonable cost. I am glad to say that as a result of the pressure that I have been able to apply, Network Rail still hopes to include that in its improvement projects and it has until the end of the year to come up with the full costing for the scheme. I hope that, through a bit of careful accounting, we have managed to find within the region the funding to do that. Again, it would be very good news for my constituents if that were able to be delivered in 2010.
	Also in the 11th year of Labour came the devastating closure of 12 post offices in my constituency. I ran a massive campaign to try to oppose those 12 closures, which were completely daft and without foundation. One of the post offices turned over £500,000 in the month in which it was closed-despite that, it was still closed. The daft thing about the decision is that in order to use a main post office people across more than 100 square miles now have to be funnelled into the centre of Cirencester, all making extra car journeys and having difficulty parking. It was one of the daftest decisions since Beeching. One Labour Member has complained today about the Beeching cuts, wanting the station in his area to be reopened, and I am sure that the same thing will happen over some of these post offices. As well as considering all the closures in my constituency, we need to consider the national situation. In 12 years, Labour has delivered 200 fewer rural schools since it came to power and 384 fewer police stations in the shires. Worst of all, 50 public houses are closing a week at the moment because of Labour's high taxation system.
	In the 12th year of this Government, Labour's recession has meant that Renishaw, a leading plc in my constituency, sadly had to make 308 people redundant in Wotton-under-Edge, Stonehouse and Woodchester, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). That was a tragedy for those involved, and I hope that 2010 will bring better news for them and they will be able to find jobs again. The Cotswolds has been badly hit by unemployment; the area had the 23rd highest rise in the number of claimants of all the 646 constituencies, and it had the 61st highest rise since 1997, when this Government came to power.
	I wish to finish by discussing two local matters. At Prime Minister's questions, I raised with the Prime Minister the issue of the funding of the further stage for the national star college. That college provides probably the finest residential training for disabled people in this country, and it is an exemplar throughout the world. The Prime Minister sent me to see the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs, who promised me that he would urgently look into the matter. The net result was that the 13th Labour college was funded, but not the star college. The Learning and Skills Council produced criteria that the star college was never able to meet, because it was national by its nature, not local or even regional. I hope that the Government will find funding for that college. If they cannot, I hope that an incoming Government will do so. There is a desperate shortage of specialist residential training colleges for disabled people in this country. As I say, the college is an exemplar throughout the world and it reflects how this country treats its disabled people. I hope that the Government will be able to find the money.
	The final issue that I wish to raise will affect all Members of this House next year: rating revaluation. Many Members of Parliament will have already been lobbied by businesses in their constituency that will find that their rates will be hugely increased next year. That comes in the middle of a recession when many of those businesses, particularly the small, rural ones, are already suffering. That seems to be a crass time to introduce rating revaluation.
	I wish to draw the House's attention to a particular quirk in the rating revaluation: the way in which petrol stations are rated. They are rated on their turnover. I cannot think of a more daft way to rate an industry, because that in effect taxes success: a property tax that taxes success! The rating system was never in business to tax success; it was in business to tax the size of a property. Ironically, Tesco has managed to get a cap on its turnover for rating purposes of £1 million. In other words, it is all very well to tax small petrol stations on their turnover, but the big ones are getting away with making huge profits and not being taxed on them. I have no problem with Tesco's making profits in its petrol stations-I wish it well in that-but I want to ensure that all the small petrol retailers in my constituency stay open so that they can provide a service to my constituents.
	In my constituency over the past 12 years of Labour, there has been a catalogue of shops closing, pubs closing, hospitals closing, libraries closing, magistrates courts closing and ambulance service mergers. In short, the Government have brought the country to its knees. They have weakened our standing internationally and, as far as the people of the Cotswolds are concerned, have shown a disgraceful attitude to the rural way of life. The recent pre-Budget statement brought home what a parlous state this country's economy is in. As countries such as Turkey, France, Germany and the United States are crawling out of recession, but we are still in recession-with very high rates of unemployment, as well as high numbers of youngsters without a job and not in training, which is such a waste of talent-I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all Members and all the staff of the House a very happy Christmas. Political hostilities will end over Christmas, but come the new year they will be back with a vengeance and I hope that we will get a change of Government.

Colin Burgon: I shall try to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and the Christmas cheer that so obviously emanated from it.
	Over the past 18 months we have lived through a financial and economic crisis of international capitalism that is unprecedented since the great depression of the '30s. Historically unmatched levels of state intervention have been required to stabilise the western economy, which at many times has stood on the verge of collapse. How ironic it is that the agency of government has done the rescuing-an idea that is anathema to all those neo-liberal free-marketeers who took as their guiding mantra Ronald Reagan's comment that government is not the solution, but the problem.
	The Government's intervention has crossed the political divide. George Bush's right-wing Government nationalised the two giant US mortgage market companies and in Britain the Labour Government have made bank interventions that have so far cost us about £140 billion, which is equivalent to more than 10 per cent. of our GDP and more than will be spent on the national health service this year.
	The state interventions have ended any supremacy claimed by those ideological fanatics who previously argued that unrestrained free markets were the answer to all economic problems. They have spent the past 30 years seeking to extend the market into more and more areas of our life and have also promoted the domination of finance over all other sectors of our economy. Yet just one year later, the same free market zealots in the world of politics and their friends in their media now want to take the axe to the public sector, allegedly to address the problems faced by the economy.
	At this point we should ask ourselves three questions. First, how did a financial collapse that brought such damage to the wider economy suddenly become the fault of such people as nurses, teachers, carers and other working people? Secondly, why should the majority of the population suffer, as they will if public services are severely cut? Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, will severe cuts help solve the economic problems that we face?
	I want to state that the debate on economic recovery has wrongly and harmfully become dominated by those who argue that only by cutting public services can the issue of growth and the national debt be addressed. That has now become accepted wisdom; it is the received orthodoxy. However, it was once the received medical orthodoxy that the bleeding of patients was a necessary step to recovery. Thankfully, that orthodoxy was overthrown due to the experience of its deadly effects. It therefore needs to be said somewhere, loud and clear, that national debt is the symptom, not the cause, of the recession. To seek to address the debt by attacking Government expenditure fails to tackle the real causes of the economic crisis that have created a deficit.
	By engaging in the cuts agenda, either now or in the next few years, we will cause long-term damage or risk a Japanese-style lost decade-or, as some economists are calling it, a zombie economy. Such an economic situation would hit the public finances even more dramatically, leaving us with even larger debts. Instead of the obsession with cuts we need a growth agenda that will allow Government revenues to rise and unemployment to fall and that will, in turn, reduce the debt.
	As such an approach breaks with the consensus that has emerged on cutting public services, it may be helpful to put the current levels of national debt into an historical and international context. Government debt, which is at 55 per cent. of GDP in this financial year, is estimated to peak at 78 per cent. in 2014. Although that figure is high, it is far from unprecedented historically. According to the recent House of Commons paper "Background to the 2009 Pre-Budget Report", Government debt was more than 100 per cent. of GDP every year from 1945 until 1963. The same paper adds:
	"UK debt would still be below that of Italy, Japan and the US, and broadly similar to that of France and Germany"
	at the end of 2010.
	Of course, the national debt should be reduced in the future, not least as interest repayments soak up vital resources that could be better spent on schools, hospitals and elsewhere, but contrary to the claim of those on the right, increasing the deficit has been necessary during the worldwide recession-especially as it was so deep. I noticed that William Keegan explained it in  The Observer in the following way:
	"the large deficit...is not the problem: it is an integral part of the solution. It is the reason why we have not experienced the kind of full-scale 1930s-style depression which would have been on the cards without drastic fiscal action."
	Furthermore, anyone seriously wishing to address the debt rather than to pursue outdated and ineffective ideological goals might first want to look at how the debt has come about. Were they to do that, they would find that it is the consequence of three things: declining Government revenues; the large bank bail-outs, which amount to more than 10 per cent. of GDP; and, to a much lesser degree, an increase in Government expenditure. Treasury figures estimate an increase in public sector net debt of 18.9 per cent. of GDP between April 2008 and April 2010, excluding the bank bail-outs.
	The majority of the increase in the debt has been caused by a fall in Government receipts. As the House of Commons paper "The outlook for the public finances" explains, it is normal during a recession for revenues to fall. Similarly, Government expenditure has also risen, as expected in a recession. That inevitable rise in Government expenditures is due to the so-called "automatic" processes that take place in a recession, such as, for example, the fact that we see more benefits paid out. However, only a minority of the deficit has been caused by the increase in Government expenditure, so I would argue that the calls to cut the public sector display economic incoherence. As Professor David Blanchflower, former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee, told the Opposition:
	"Cutting public spending in a recession is a really bad idea."
	I urge even those people on the Government Benches who are tempted by it to reject it.
	So, what is the way forward? What practical polices do we need to address the vital issues of investment and growth? First, we need the Government to use their majority holdings in a number of banks to force the banks to increase investment and lending levels to businesses and to families to revive the economy and housing market. I am one of those who think that there is an element of gutlessness in the way that our Government have dealt with the banks, but we may come on to that later.
	Secondly, in those areas where market failure is greatest and private investment has collapsed the most, the Government need to step in and invest directly themselves. Large-scale state investment in transport and housing in such areas would be economically as well as socially useful.
	Thirdly, in the really long term, we desperately need to rebalance the economy away from its reliance on finance and develop the industries of the future. The UK has the potential to generate something like 400,000 jobs in green industries, but to fulfil that potential we need state-led investment on a green new deal that would be of tremendous immediate economic benefit and of long-term environmental benefit.
	Fourthly, we can help reflate the economy through increasing levels of consumption by putting money into the pockets of those most likely to spend it. The last 30 years of neo-liberalism have witnessed a smaller and smaller proportion of the economy going to wages. If the Government were to reverse that by raising taxation on the super-rich and then handing over exactly the same amount of money to ordinary families, overall consumer spending would rise, helping the economy to move out of recession.
	Finally, for those who advocate cuts, there are areas of public spending that can be cut. We do not need to renew Trident and, although I used to support them, I no longer think that we need ID cards. By cutting those projects, tens of billions of pounds could be saved at a stroke.
	The package that I have outlined is only a small example of what could be done. It would be a popular message-I know that sometimes Governments do not like to be "populist", but never mind-and it would deal with the debt and the much larger issue of restoring economic growth.
	The alternative to going for growth is a cuts agenda, but cuts are not savings. They would remove demand from the economy and the recession would worsen as the negative multiplier effect kicked in. On this, we need to learn the lessons of history. Roosevelt announced his new deal in 1933, and things went well for three years after the banks were regulated and there was a big increase in public spending. Then, afraid of public debt and under pressure from the right, he began to cut, sending the economy back into a recession from which it did not recover until just before the second world war.
	We can also learn from countries that are a bit closer to Britain than America. If we look just across the Irish sea, we can see the slash-and-burn tactics being employed by the Irish Government. The Fianna Fáil Government have overseen savage cuts to the public sector and a real fiscal tightening-something so beloved of the right wing in this country. That has been to the detriment to the wider economy in Ireland, which has continued to worsen. So the debt continues to rise while the Governments have become more unpopular as the majority have suffered. Colleague and comrades on the Labour Benches should learn the economic and political lessons from Ireland.
	I mentioned Roosevelt in a slightly pejorative way earlier so, in an attempt to balance that, I want to say that I believe that we are in a period of great ideological debate-and that is as it should be in a period of great economic crisis. Basically, the debate boils down to these questions: has the neo-liberal consensus of the past 30 years been correct, and what is the role of Government?
	By way of an answer, I shall draw on the words of Roosevelt himself. He said:
	"What is the State? It is the duly constituted representative of an organized society of human beings, created by them for their mutual protection and well-being. 'The state' or 'The Government' is but the machinery through which such mutual aid and protection are achieved."
	As we have this huge intellectual debate, I hope that those ideas are remembered. I also hope that we are moving into a period that sees the demise of neo-liberalism.
	On that positive note, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you all the best at Christmas? I also wish all the best at Christmas to all hon. Members, and especially to all the staff who work so hard for us here.

David Amess: In a similar vein to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I wish to raise several issues. This is the last Christmas Adjournment debate before we face a general election, and this has been a dreadful year. Labour has succeeded in destroying the country and it has destroyed this place. The place in which we work has been greatly diminished. We are seen as an irrelevance and no longer as an attractive ornament. What has happened in the past year is an absolute travesty.
	Underlining everything, we have the state of the British economy. It is in a terrible state. We owe £178 billion and the Government are trying to kid us all that they have done a splendid job in running the finances and the problems are just part of the world phenomenon. Every Wednesday the Prime Minister used to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that he had abolished boom and bust. Well, my constituents are puzzled about where the boom has been, and they are convinced that this country is bust. I lay the blame entirely at the feet of this Government.
	As chairman of the all-party group for small shops, I spent the summer visiting every small shop in my constituency. My goodness, times are tough for them. The slogan "If you don't use 'em, we'll lose 'em" is true. They are having a very tough time in competition with the larger supermarkets, as several of my hon. Friends have mentioned. I hope that colleagues on both sides of the House will rally round at a reception early next year to support small businesses. I am very worried about the state of our finances, and we will not come out of recession until next year.
	A related issue is the pay of public servants. The allowances and payment of parliamentarians have come under great scrutiny this year for several reasons. Many suggestions have been made about how we could save money. However, it is not clear how the pay of other public servants, especially at senior levels, will be judged and scrutinised under the freedom of information legislation. Some of them seem to be completely impervious to such scrutiny.
	The electorate employ us as Members of Parliament and they renew, or end, our contract at a general election. However, it has not yet been determined how other senior public servants and leaders of these umpteen quangos can be removed from office if the general public are dissatisfied with their performance. As long ago as 2000, I raised the issue of public appointments in South Essex health authority in a Westminster Hall debate. It was all about the merger of two trusts and how people with mental health problems would be regarded in the future. I mentioned the potential appointment of a chief executive, and I remember clearly how the then Labour Minister dealt with the issue. Basically, I was told that Southend and Thurrock would be merged, but it turned out to be a takeover by the Thurrock trust. The person to whom I referred in that debate was appointed as chief executive, and recently, under the Freedom of Information Act, it has been found that nine years on that gentleman is paid more than £200,000 and received a bonus of £17,500. This is absolute madness!
	We hear constant reports in the press about Members' allowances, and quite rightly there will be changes to the proposed system, and of course there is the furore surrounding bonuses for bankers working for the financial institutions bailed out by the British taxpayer. Yet where is the scrutiny of public sector pay of senior people in, for instance, the health service and police? The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) alluded to that point. The payment of public sector executives is completely cut off from the harsh realities of the UK economic situation. The average family is struggling at the moment. The Government should pay more attention to that situation.
	Over the past three years, Essex has had three chief constables. The first chief constable's contract was not renewed, the second took early retirement and a third was appointed this year. The third was apparently one of three candidates, but the other two dropped out of the competition. In other words, there was a choice of one, and he was appointed. I and, presumably, my Essex colleagues were never told of the appointment until 26 October, when I received a letter from the new chief constable's personal assistant stating:
	"You may like to amend your records to reflect that Mr Jim Barker-McCardle was appointed as substantive Chief Constable with effect from the 8th September 2009".
	There was no embarrassment at all. My goodness! When this place had some standing, on the appointment of a new chief constable, Members would, out of common courtesy, be sent a letter from that person informing them of the appointment. We have become such an irrelevance that we do not get any letters from chief constables-we are not even told that a new one has been appointed-and when we complain to Ministers, they simply say that they have no responsibility in the matter. It is disgraceful!
	Even the former chairman of the Police Federation has, in a Home Office-commissioned report, criticised the complex organisational and decision-making structure at the top of the policing system, which generates confusion about accountability among police officers. I must say that although the Independent Police Complaints Commission is very well led, in reality its judgments have no teeth. Any judgment is simply given to the chief constable, who does not seem to be responsible to anyone. I cannot see the purpose of Essex police authority.
	As we all know, the cost to the country of the war in Afghanistan and our previous involvement in Iraq has been very high, not just financially, but-much more importantly-in the loss of young lives. Many of us had the honour of greeting troops returning from Afghanistan last month. They are doing an incredible job under very difficult circumstances. Last Monday we lost the 100th British soldier in Afghanistan, and two more have been killed recently.
	All of us are watching the Chilcot inquiry very carefully, but however soft the questioning is, it seems certain that the previous Prime Minister did not tell the truth to the House of Commons about why we should get involved with Iraq. The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said that the ex-Prime Minister engaged in an "alarming subterfuge" with the then American President. The former Prime Minister has now told us, in an interview with a celebrity, that he would have gone to war regardless of whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. I am one of those Conservative Members of Parliament who were stupid enough to believe what the then Prime Minister said, but it was not his choice to make; it was the choice of this House of Commons. It is an absolute disgrace that he has come out with that statement in a soft interview with a celebrity.
	I hope that when the former Prime Minister gives evidence next year, some action will be taken as a result of what he says. I think that he deliberately misled Parliament on that issue, and why oh why he was so sycophantic to the United States of America I cannot imagine. Even the new American President, who in the build-up to the American election talked about cutting troop numbers in Afghanistan, is now sending another 30,000, which is more than his predecessor sent. What is going on now is absolutely crazy. Why the American President got the Nobel peace prize, before he had done anything whatever, I do not know. Again, that astonishes me.
	I am the chairman of the all-party group on solvent abuse. Solvent abuse is an area that receives very little attention, despite the fact that NHS research shows that volatile substances are the most common entry-level substances among young people who choose to take drugs. More children aged 13 and under use volatile substances than use any illegal drug. St. George's, university of London has done some excellent work in its report, "Trends in Death Associated With Abuse of Volatile Substances", and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will urge a Secretary of State to have a meeting with the all-party group.
	A constituent, Mr. Congdon, has raised the issue of Vioxx with me. He very much wants compensation for UK users of Vioxx from Merck, Sharp and Dohme. Tragically, his wife died as a result of taking that prescription painkiller. From 1999 to 2004, Vioxx was widely prescribed as a painkiller for arthritis, migraines and menstruation. There have been many lawsuits in America, but in this country nothing whatever has been done about giving compensation.
	Another constituent, Kevin Jones, raised with me the issue of tax credits. Having phoned the so-called helpline, I could not have found the person who answered to be ruder. When I said, "This is a helpline," and told her that I was an MP, she said, "So what?" If anyone wants proof of how diminished we are out there, there it is, on the so-called helpline. What has happened with tax credit claims that were overpaid is an absolute shambles and has certainly caused enormous difficulties for many constituents.
	Last Friday I met the Southend Association of Voluntary Services, whose job it is to advise and support local not-for-profit groups. It does a wonderful job under difficult circumstances. However, as with many third sector organisations, budget cuts have forced the association to cut down on a number of its activities. One of the most worthwhile projects that it runs is the vinvolved project, a volunteering project for 16 to 25-year-olds. The funding is secured only until March 2011, and I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House could see what she can do to encourage the Treasury and others to give that excellent organisation some support.
	Last week I spoke at the National Audit Office's rheumatoid arthritis conference, in my capacity as the joint chairman of the all-party group on inflammatory arthritis. A National Audit Office report entitled "Services for people with rheumatoid arthritis" was published in July, and it makes it clear that services are very patchy throughout the country. I hope that the Health Secretary will do whatever he can to bolster support for people suffering from arthritis.
	During the summer Adjournment debate, I raised the issue of seat belts. We all remember the row that took place in the House when we first voted to make seat belts compulsory. A number of Members of Parliament thought that it was not the right thing to do, although it turned out to be completely the right thing to do. However, some people, in order to be more comfortable, do not wear their seat belts as they should. Instead of the collar bone taking the full force in an accident, damage can be done to the ribcage and to vital internal organs. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on my concerns on that issue to the Secretary of State for Transport.
	We often think about animals at Christmas time, and I hope that there will not be the usual number of unwanted pets this year. I was recently at a gathering organised by the International Fund for Animal Welfare to celebrate the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. That organisation does a wonderful job of looking after animal welfare. As the animals are unable to speak for themselves, I hope that at this time we will do all that we can to support their welfare and to ensure that there are not too many unwanted pets this Christmas. I join all others in wishing everyone a very happy Christmas and a much better new year.

Peter Soulsby: Last Tuesday, I was called by an excited researcher from one of my local radio stations who asked me if I was aware that Leicester had been named as the crime capital of the east midlands. While I was trying to catch my breath, following that astonishing announcement, the young researcher went on to tell me that it was a city in which public services do not work well together and in which not enough was being done to tackle the major problems that many local people face. She also told me that people's health was worse there than anywhere else in the east midlands, and that too many of them were dying early- [ Interruption. ] Yes, it sounds like Essex, doesn't it?
	I simply did not recognise the city from the description that the researcher was giving me, although I would not suggest for a moment that it is without problems. When I had caught my breath, I asked her for the source of her information. She told me that it was the Audit Commission. As a former member of the Audit Commission, I took that fairly seriously and agreed to go on air to talk about the matter. Before doing so, I did some research into the background.
	The description had come from a person called Mary Perry, who is rather grandly titled the Oneplace spokesperson for Leicester. I understand that she is also the Oneplace spokesperson for a number of other places in the east midlands. My research allowed me at least to understand the context of the description. The work that it was announcing is very worth while. It is an attempt to bring together the results of the various inspection regimes that look at local authorities, including the Audit Commission-the lead body involved-the Quality Care Commission, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons and Ofsted, and to bring all the data that they produce in their reports together in one place, to make it accessible to the public on a single website. That is of course very welcome.
	It is some years since I was a member of the Audit Commission. At that time, we used to look forward to the prospect of what was then described-it might still be-as joined-up inspection. That would involve bringing the various regimes together in a way that made sense to the bodies that were being inspected, and to the public, on whose behalf the inspections were taking place.
	The principles that the Audit Commission followed then, and does now, involve ensuring that the performance indicators used in the inspections are relevant, that they avoid creating perverse incentives, and that the conclusions that are drawn at the end of the inspection processes are firmly evidence-based. Of course, in looking at the inspection, as I hope the Audit Commission and the other regimes that inspect our local authorities and our local bodies now do, I hope that the approach will be robust and independent when necessary, while also being a critical friend rather than a hostile outsider when that is the more appropriate approach.
	It was with that in mind that I looked at the news release from which the researcher was drawing a picture of the city of Leicester. Indeed, Mary Perry, this Oneplace spokesperson for Leicester, described the city as one where the partnership
	"is not giving crime a high priority."
	She continued:
	"Recent crime figures are the worst in the East Midlands. Community safety partners need to work together more effectively to reduce crime and make the city safer for local people."
	I could go on and refer to other elements that the researcher had drawn out from the press release.
	I have to say that that description of the city is not one that those involved in the various partnerships and bodies that provide services to the city would recognise-and it is certainly not one that I recognise either. It does not represent what any reasonable person who knows the city would consider to be a balanced judgment about it and the services it receives. The press release is based on broad generalisations and contains, frankly, headline-grabbing snippets. No doubt that was done with the very best of intentions and no doubt it was done with the intention of drawing people's attention to the launch of the new initiative, to the website that lies behind it and the overview that it seeks to give. Frankly, however, it does nothing for the reputation of the Audit Commission or the other inspectorates that contributed to it.
	The Audit Commission has raised a lot of questions about the data lying behind the news release that described Leicester in that way and led the researcher to conclude that the city was the "crime capital" of the east midlands, but it has not helped to point the way to those who seek to find answers to the questions, which include: what crime sort of crime figures-are they recorded crime figures, reported crime figures, or crime figures as perceived by the victims of those crimes? None of those questions is answered, so I believe that to be shoddy work from the Audit Commission.
	It would indeed be perverse if Leicestershire constabulary, which has such an excellent record of encouraging people to report crimes and of encouraging its officers to record them when they are reported, were to be penalised as a result of the success of those policies on encouraging the reporting and recording of crimes, yet that is precisely the sort of conclusion that the casual reader would reach from that news release. It would also be perverse indeed if this led to Leicestershire constabulary doing what I understand other constabularies sometimes do-actually encouraging people not to report and officers not to record crimes. It seems to me that, on this occasion, the Audit Commission has made a serious mistake in the way it has sought to promote that new website and the excellent initiative in which it plays a lead part.
	I have tried to look behind the figures, but in looking at the website, I have frankly not been able to find out how those conclusions were reached or what sort of crime figures were used in reaching them. I have discovered from talking to those who are part of the community safety partnership in Leicester that there are a lot of very unhappy and very committed people who were involved in the promotion of community safety in the city, but who are deeply disappointed, deeply upset and deeply distressed by the resulting publicity that followed the news release.
	I am deeply unhappy by the approach that has been adopted. I am particularly unhappy because, while it may get a headline, it certainly does not do justice to the city, and it certainly does not do justice to those who are concerned for its well-being.
	The Audit Commission and the other inspectors have come up with a very simplistic way of describing services in the city of Leicester and, indeed, in other local authority areas up and down the land. It boils down to the use of flags: red flags and green flags. Other hon. Members may well be familiar with such arrangements in their areas. While the use of such simplistic devices may be attractive in terms of drawing attention to things-for instance, the new website-it is over-simplistic in this context, and difficult to justify.
	I have noted the green flags given to the areas around Leicester, and the lack of green flags relating to any of the services in Leicester itself; I have noted the red flags given to the areas around Leicester, and the red flags given to the city itself; and I have reached the conclusion that the choice of green or red flags is entirely subjective.

Mike Hancock: My hon. Friend-not for the first time-makes the important point that the commission is not accountable, and it is about time it was.
	My final point is a bit of sour grapes, from my point of view, and concerns the England 2018 world cup bid. My city enthusiastically got behind the campaign and supported it to such an extent that we set up a team and invested close to £250,000. But when it came to the crunch-make-your-mind-up time-the appalling behaviour of FIFA, the Football Association and, to a lesser extent, the Government persuaded the city council not to pursue its bid to be a host city.
	I was disappointed, yet I too voted to abandon the bid. We would have ended up needing an on-paper potential outlay of £24 million, perhaps more, with little or no evidence that any of the return on it would come back to us. Even before we could be selected, we were asked to sign a contract on 26 November that suggested that we would have to pay another £250,000 to the FA for its marketing bid. Members will have seen some of the FA's expenditure, such as buying expensive luggage and other gifts to bribe people to vote for us. We were also told that we would have to provide the finance for one person to spend 36 days in South Africa as an active part of the campaign team.
	We were told that if we were successful, we would be expected to do an awful lot of things, including guaranteeing a stadium for the games to be played in. The football club in Portsmouth desperately needs a new stadium, but it could not give a cast-iron assurance. The city council was told that if it wanted to make this bid, it had to guarantee the stadium or it would have to compensate FIFA for another city's having to take on the responsibilities that Portsmouth could not. We were already being told that if we had a new stadium in Portsmouth, built by the club, we would have to put £6 million of council tax payers' money into it to increase its capacity to meet FIFA's standards, with no guarantee that we would get any gain, or even any kudos, from it.
	We were told that we would have to ban all existing advertising, for the duration of the competition, for 1 km around the stadium and 1 km around the fans area. We would have to pay compensation to everybody who now displays adverts in those areas. No one within that zone would have been allowed to sell food or beverages, either, because FIFA had made its own arrangements for food and beverage deals around the ground.
	We were originally told that if we signed that contract we could get between 10 and 15 per cent. of the gate receipts of all the 64 games that would be played in England during the world cup competition. Then we were told, "No, we've changed our minds. You'll get between 10 and 15 per cent. of the receipts that your ground gets for games played there." Then that changed too, and we were told, "No, you'll get whatever they choose to pay you after they've taken out all their costs, because in effect, FIFA is hiring the ground."
	It was a complete and utter fiasco. The FA wrote to the city council on 18 November, giving even more conditions. We were advised by lawyers that it would be helpful if we put money aside for a judicial review of the legality of signing such a one-sided contract. When we sought the Government's assistance and asked them to step in on behalf of all 16 local authorities that were bidding at that stage, they turned their back on us. They said, "It's down to you, but be careful what you sign."
	I hope that the 2018 World cup bid is a success for the UK, but for local authorities it could be one of the biggest financial disasters ever to befall them. The city of Portsmouth made a wise decision to get out before we were too far committed. It is a sad reflection on FIFA, the FA and the Government that they treat our national game in such a disrespectful way-and FIFA in particular have a lot of questions to answer.

Paul Holmes: Like other hon. Members, I wish to raise local issues, but first I want to talk about an international issue. In 2003, this Parliament voted to invade Iraq. That was an illegal invasion and a disastrous decision. In 2003, I was one of the MPs-as were all of my colleagues-who voted against that invasion. I also came down to London one Sunday shortly before the vote, with my then nine-year-old daughter and 1 million other people, to march outside this building to protest what was clearly about to happen.
	Hans Blix and his team of UN weapons inspectors had spent some months going to more than half-some 60 per cent.-of the sites that the British and US intelligence services had identified as possible sites for WMD, and they had found nothing. Hans Blix reported that openly and publicly, and he said that if he had another three months, they could finish going to all the sites, but that they expected to find nothing. Instead, of course, we took a different course of action.
	Already we are seeing, in the early days of the Chilcot inquiry, evidence confirming the view that many of us had back in 2003 that the flimsy evidence of an Iraqi taxi driver and an online student dissertation was sexed up to make a false case for war. We now have the vision of the Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, appearing on television and admitting openly that he would have taken this country to war anyway, regardless of what case could or could not be made on WMD. But only days before the vote that took us into Iraq, he stood at the Dispatch Box and told this House that if Saddam Hussein and his sons were willing to give up their weapons of mass destruction, they could stay in power. Tony Blair categorically stated that it was not about regime change, but about WMD. How can someone give up WMD that they do not possess because they do not exist?
	The Iraq war-a wrong and illegal war-went ahead. It alienated the Muslim world which, only 18 months earlier, had largely rallied around the US after the disgraceful 9/11 attacks. It led to 500,000 to 600,000 people in Iraq dying by UN estimates and up to 1 million dying by other estimates. Bombings continue to wreak havoc in Baghdad and across Iraq, as we saw tragically only a few days ago. Iraq became a recruiting sergeant for international terrorism.
	On the other hand, the Afghan war in 2001 was different. The Afghanistan invasion was justified and legal, and as a newly elected MP at the time I argued that case against the Stop the War coalition at a public meeting in Chesterfield. Eighteen months later, I argued at a similar public meeting that the Iraq war was wrong.
	Afghanistan was justified because 9/11 had been planned and executed from safe bases there, and of course there had been attacks around the world before 9/11, most notably on the US embassy in Kenya where the American targets were missed and 60 Africans, who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, were cold-bloodedly slaughtered. The great majority of the Muslim world rallied around and supported the USA after the disgraceful 9/11 attack, and supported the invasion of Afghanistan.
	In general, the coalition troops who went into Afghanistan were welcomed in much of the country as liberators, not just by the Kurds and the Northern Alliance, but in many other parts of the country. But then all attention was taken away from that country and disastrously diverted to the illegal invasion of Iraq-the eye was taken off the ball. Eight years later-almost as long as world war one and world war two put together-the Government say that they will provide enough helicopters and armoured patrol vehicles by next year and train up the Afghan forces to take over from western troops some time in the future.
	What on earth have the Government been doing for the past eight years? Why did they not provide enough helicopters at some point over the past eight years? Why did they not provide suitable armoured patrol vehicles over the past eight years? Why did they not embark on a serious, large-scale programme of training up Afghan security forces so that they could do the jobs currently done by western troops over the past eight years? Why have they waited until now to say, "We'll do it for next year"? It is too late. It is eight years too late. If we send our servicemen and women out to risk their lives, they should be properly equipped from the start, not eight or nine years in.
	Chesterfield has been relatively lucky so far in that, as far as I know, we have only had one death in the armed forces in Afghanistan. However, others have been injured, some of them disabled for life. The young man who died, Ben Ford, was 19. I was about to call him a young boy because he was exactly the same age as my son. They were in the same year group at the same school, and when my son was 19, I still thought of him-wrongly, I suppose-as a boy. Ben Ford died because his Snatch Land Rover was blown up by an improvised explosive device. Had it been a properly armoured patrol vehicle, he might have survived. Neither did the vehicle have any electronic warfare counter measures-the sort of measures that can intercept the radio signals that set off IEDs from a distance via remote control. Had it been properly equipped, he might have survived.
	Military personnel know, when they join the armed forces, that they risk their lives-that is part of the job-but they should be entitled to know that they are being sent with the best equipment possible and for a clearly defined and legal purpose and objective, and that the politicians in charge are fully focused on the endgame that will end the conflict, not that after eight years the Government will suddenly wake up to the drift that has characterised this country's presence in Afghanistan since 2001. It is a drift that has led to unnecessary deaths.
	On more local issues, last Wednesday, I and other Derbyshire MPs met a wide-ranging delegation that included the police and fire authorities, and various councils, including Chesterfield borough council and North East Derbyshire, Bolsover and South Derbyshire district councils. They came to lobby us on various issues. Also, this morning, I met the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) to discuss the chronic underfunding of Chesterfield borough council as a result of the Government's bus fare scheme.
	What was the common thread between those two meetings, two weeks apart and covering a range of councils, police and fire authorities, and bus fares? It was that none of that lobbying involved any special pleading. Nobody was asking for something extra or for what other people did not have. Nobody was saying, "Give us something new. Give us more on top." Each lobbying group-whether a council, fire brigade, police authority, Chesterfield borough council or with an interest in bus fares-was saying, "Give us the money that you as a Government say that we should have but will not give to us."
	I will provide an explanation, although hon. Members will be familiar with the details. Derbyshire police are underfunded by £5 million a year. It is not the police saying that; it is the Government. However, the Government will not give the police that £5 million a year. The fire service in Derbyshire is less badly affected than the police are, but it is also underfunded. All the councils in Derbyshire, from the district and borough councils up to the county council, are also underfunded, according to the Government's own figures.
	Many hon. Members will be familiar with the f40 campaign, which I was part of as a councillor, long before I was elected as an MP. When the Government were first elected in 1997, the f40 campaign was promised that the problem of shire counties in particular being badly underfunded by the complex formula used to devise central Government funding would be resolved. In 2006, the Government finally revised the funding formula. From 2006, they said, "Yes, you should have more money"-you being the police authority, the fire service or the council-"but you can't have it, because of the floors and ceilings in operation." Derbyshire police, which is the fifth worst funded police force in the country and has hundreds fewer police officers than equivalent shire counties such as Nottinghamshire or Durham, therefore continues to suffer.
	In 2008, the Government introduced an excellent national bus fare scheme, which is of great value in enhancing older people's lives, but they failed to fund it properly for around 30 of the 263 authorities that were involved. At first the Government just denied that there was a problem, although I am pleased to say that the meeting that I had this morning with the Transport Minister was much more positive than the one that I had last year with his predecessor. Last year the Government denied that there was a problem; this year they have accepted that there is one. They are proposing to give Chesterfield borough council and the other 30 authorities that have been badly hit their money for next year, from 1 April 2010, although that is not a guarantee, because other councils that were given too much money are complaining bitterly that they do not want that money taken away from them.
	How do councils deal with that general situation, involving the police, the fire service, bus fares, council funding and so on, when 75 per cent. of funding for local authorities basically comes from the Government grant, not the local council tax? Most local voters simply do not understand that. How do local authorities deal with things when the direction on how to spend most of that money comes from central Government, rather than from local decision taking? Local voters just do not understand that. If the Government refuse to pay up, as they have in all the cases that I have mentioned, what can the local authority do?
	In Surrey, where the police force was in the same situation with its funding, the decision was made to increase the council tax by more than the recommended level. There was a wide consultation with the public and businesses, who said, "Yes, we'd rather increase the council tax than have fewer police on the beat," and as a result a cap was introduced.
	Derbyshire police force has gone down the same route, consulting widely and receiving overwhelming feedback from across Derbyshire saying, "Yes, we'd rather pay more council tax than cut our police force," which is already the fifth worst funded in the country. However, the Government have said, "No, you can't take that decision. We don't care what local people, local councils or the police force say in Derbyshire; we're going to underfund you. And, to rub your nose in it, we're going to cap you." That means that Derbyshire is facing the loss of front-line police officers next year, when it is already one of the lowest staffed forces in the country, albeit a very efficient one.
	In the short term, the Government should solve the problem by providing the money that they say those councils should have for those services, but which they will not provide them with. In the longer term, but not after too long-this should happen as soon as the next general election is over-the next Government should reverse the whole system. We are so centralised that 90 per cent. of the taxation raised is taken to London and then handed out with strings attached. The Government in London try to micro-manage everything that councils do and everything that schools do, through Ofsted, league tables and the national curriculum.
	That should be reversed, and it is not what happens in the rest of the western world. It does not happen anywhere else in Europe, apart from Malta, which is a small island and can be excused, nor does it happen in Canada, the USA or Australia. As with proportional representation, we are the odd ones out. So the rest of the world has got it wrong and we have got it right? I do not think so. The Government should change the system to the benefit of democracy in this country-and, for that matter, for more efficient local government.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) mentioned the Oneplace reports that are online. From the sounds of it, the report for Chesterfield was much more optimistic than the one for Leicester, but two things in it stood out. The first was that, in talking about the problems facing Chesterfield borough council, which was praised for its work on boosting the open-air market, attracting employers, bucking the recession to some extent and doing a grand job in all sorts of ways, the report pointed out-over and over, on the first five of the nine pages in the report-that the council faces a huge problem because of the underfunding of bus fares. Last year and this year, 11 per cent. of the council's budget was diverted not into anything to do with the borough council, but into paying for the Government's underfunded scheme. I hope that the Government will rectify that next year, but there is no mention at all of paying back the £3.5 million that has been taken away in the past two years, much to the detriment of Chesterfield services.
	The report states:
	"Councillors must decide soon where to get the necessary investment of around £43.8 million to bring its council houses up to the required standard".
	Where indeed? The Government will not provide that money. They will not give back the rent, the right-to-buy money or the money that they have taken away from Chesterfield over the years to pay housing benefits and to build the Olympic infrastructure in London. They are not going to give any of that back, so where is the money to come from?
	The council could go to an arm's-length management organisation, which is one of the Government's options, but the ALMOs are now being told that they cannot have any money either. The only option is complete privatisation, by handing housing over to the housing associations. As with nearly half the councils around the country, however, 70 per cent. of the people of Chesterfield have said no to privatisation. What is the council to do in the face of policies from a Government who say, "If you don't privatise and transfer out, we will effectively starve you out by taking money away from your council rents and not allowing you to maintain your stock in the way that the people of Chesterfield want"?

Jo Swinson: I certainly would, and my hon. Friend makes his point very well indeed. This matter is something that requires urgent action, especially in a recession, from the Government and bodies such as the OFT.
	I have mentioned redundancy, which has affected many of my constituents, but the fear of unemployment hanging over many people adds to stress and creates problems in the home. It is something that our constituents all face on a regular basis.
	On a slightly more positive note, there has been good news on the unemployment figures in my constituency of East Dunbartonshire: a slight drop has been recorded in the past two months. I hope that that is a trend but fear that it may not be, as we all know that unemployment tends to be a lagging indicator in recessions. There could be more pain to come, especially given that there may be future strictures on the public sector.
	A great many of my constituents employed in the civil service have been concerned by the proposed changes to the civil service compensation scheme and how their potential compensation if they were made redundant would be altered. I accept that the scheme needs to be amended, but the proposed changes are causing concern about the inequity between different types of workers. I hope that the Government will listen to the representations that are being made, and come forward with amended plans for the scheme.
	The recession is hitting savers particularly hard. The low interest rates may be good for those with mortgages, but their effect is quite the opposite for people who rely on interest payments on their savings for their basic, day-to-day living. That is causing problems for many older people in my constituency in particular.
	Many of those older people are also victims of the Equitable Life saga. They put their savings into a well respected institution, and I am one of many MPs to be frustrated in our attempts to make progress in this matter. I have called an Adjournment debate on the issue, and I have attended other Adjournment debates on it, including one secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). In addition, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has been very active on the matter, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House through the all-party group on Equitable Life.
	It seems that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. There is continual delay, and we know that people with Equitable Life policies are dying before getting the opportunity to receive any possible compensation. I urge the Government to deal with the matter and to recognise that, when they have a parliamentary ombudsman and she has given a firm ruling on the issue, it makes sense that that should be followed.
	East Dunbartonshire is often seen as an affluent constituency, but that does not mean that there is no poverty. It is often hidden. Pensioners in particular may live in a large house that has been their family home, but they face difficulties with fuel poverty in trying to heat that home, and with large council tax bills because the council tax system is not related to ability to pay and is very unfair.
	We have had concerns for other elderly people in my area who require care at home or who are living in sheltered housing. Like some other local authorities, East Dunbartonshire council has tried to introduce charges for sheltered housing wardens, among other things. Wardens are an essential part of living in such accommodation, which helps people to maintain an independent life for far longer and is much better value than going into more supported accommodation. I know that local authorities will have difficulties balancing the budget during the recession, but I hope that some of the most vulnerable people in our society are not seen as the first port of call for savings. That would be very unjust indeed.
	It is sometimes said that all politics is local. There have recently been various controversial local issues in my constituency. The Kilmardinny development is proposed for a piece of land between Milngavie and Bearsden in my constituency. Much of the land, such as the old bus station site, has been derelict for some years, although other parts of it have been used for golf and other purposes. People accept that the land should be developed, and the local council's local plan suggested that 330 houses would be appropriate, but a proposal came forward for 550 houses, which is clear overdevelopment. Despite the proposal being overwhelmingly rejected by the local council more than two years ago, the decision will ultimately be taken by one unelected official, the reporter.
	I see other hon. Members nodding. They will have had such experiences in their constituencies. In the case in East Dunbartonshire, the community gain is limited and the traffic improvements will probably only counter the increase in traffic problems that would come from the impact of an additional 550 houses on local roads. The £10 million planning gain for a new local leisure centre does not cover the £70 million cost, at least, of building such a centre. If the reporter recommends that the scheme go ahead under those conditions, the council could be put under pressure to accept a development that would leave it out of pocket.

Barbara Keeley: I, too, thank all Members for their contributions. We have heard from 23 Members on subjects ranging from the demise of neo-liberalism to the apparently terrible years in the Cotswolds. We have heard about climate change and decent council homes, about allotments and aircraft carriers, about speech and language therapists, and about inspirational head teachers. The Essex Members have fought over Olly from "The X Factor", and we have heard that we should go to Devon but probably not to the Cotswolds. We have also heard Members' views on Sri Lanka, the Yemen, and the role of Europe in the world. I think that that is about as wide-ranging as we were able to become, but in addition we almost heard the flower duet from "Lakmé"-as well as something about Rod Stewart which I shall gloss over very quickly-and a version of "While Shepherds Watched" sung to the tune of "On Ilkley Moor Baht 'At". We have been very seasonal.
	First and most importantly, let me join all the Members who have paid tribute to our armed forces: those serving in Afghanistan, those who have fallen and their families, and those who have been injured. Let me mention in particular Simon Annis from Salford, of 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, who died earlier this year trying to save an injured colleague. Let me also express support for the fire, police and health service staff and the coastguards who will help us to get through the Christmas season.
	Let me touch briefly on events that have taken place in the House since the last pre-recess debate. The Chamber was opened to the UK Youth Parliament on 30 October. There were five debates, and I am sure that Members in all parties will agree that the young people conducted themselves very well. I hope that that may become a more regular event in the House.
	Members touched on the fact that, following the crisis that engulfed the House in connection with the way in which in which some Members had used their allowances, we had passed the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which was given Royal Assent on the day of the last pre-recess Adjournment debate. We have now established the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which has a chief executive, a chair and other board members. It is preparing to make changes which I trust will restore the credibility and standing of the House in the face of what has been a critical period for this place. The need for that was raised by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson).
	Very late the other evening, we established the London Regional Committee. Let me take this opportunity to wish its members well in their work. There have been other achievements, but I shall pass over those.
	Some Members used their speeches to engage in what the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), described as political point-scoring-he was right: we heard quite a lot of that today-rather than raising issues that required a response from me. Others raised entirely local issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned 13, which I think must be a record for him. I am afraid that I lost count of the number raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), but he did his usual sterling job.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is not in the Chamber now. However, I have already told him how much I sympathise with his difficulties with the Highways Agency. I consider it intolerable that his constituents were not informed of the work before it started, particularly the removal of tree screens. I shall work hard to try to help my hon. Friend. I understand that he has a contact for meetings, that the chief executive of the Highways Agency is now willing to meet him, and that the Secretary of State for Transport will write to him shortly.
	The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised a number of issues. He will understand that I cannot comment on the outcome of Ofsted inspections because that is a matter for an independent inspectorate, but I will ensure that the chief inspector writes to him. He also mentioned credit unions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced the creation of a social investment wholesale bank and further support for credit unions, but I will write to him about the issues in his constituency.
	I understand that the hon. Gentleman met the Homes and Communities Agency and the relevant Minister last week, to discuss his concerns about funding for decent homes. This is a difficult issue. Other Members have talked about the need for new council housing, and to meet that need there are to be 22,500 new council homes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the Government's work in Sri Lanka. Several other Members talked about that subject. There is still concern in the Chamber about this matter, and I shall get a response to the specific issues raised.
	In this week of the climate change conference, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) made an important contribution-as she always does when she speaks in the House. She knows that this is a critical period for securing a deal at Copenhagen, and the Prime Minister is working on achieving that today. She will also know that the Prime Minister proposed a Copenhagen launch fund of $10 billion to assist developing countries-such as those she mentioned- to deal with climate change, with a €2.4 billion contribution from the European Union.
	My hon. Friend also referred to the boiler scrappage scheme, which did not get a fair press when it was announced in the pre-Budget report, and national grid tariffs for people in fuel poverty, and I shall pass her comments on to the relevant Ministers. She made a very strong case on that.
	On the contribution of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), I have already said that we should all go to Devon over Christmas, and I am sure that I would if I could. The hon. Lady has had a distinguished 18-year career. Recently, since I have been a Member, she has been vice-chair of the all-party group on carers, of which I was also vice-chair. It does vital work.
	The hon. Lady discussed the reform of the House, and I am pleased to hear of her change of heart on the use of Westminster Hall. She also talked about the number of quangos and the importance of supporting disabled people going back to work. She might know that there is an independent review of the work capability assessment, which is due to report in 2010. Clearly, her own meetings at local level will be of help, but she may want to contribute to the review as well.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) touched on so many issues that I will not be able to discuss all of them. Among them were sheltered housing, British manufacturing and new technologies, support for service families-we have rightly heard about that time and again in this debate-local farming and child care vouchers. He also mentioned the awful attack on Jessica Knight, and I will pass on the compensation issue he raised.
	On the electrification of the north-west railway line, my hon. Friend is right to say that both his and my constituents will benefit from that greener and more comfortable and reliable mode of travel. My hon. Friend also mentioned a local shop. I shop at the Unicorn co-operative, which is in Chorlton, not Chorley, but, like Booths, it has good policies on local buying and not selling products brought in by aeroplanes from far distant places.
	The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) talked about a number of global issues, particularly the importance of the role of the EU in the world, and I will make sure his comments are passed on to Foreign Office Ministers. I hope he can make that point about the importance of the EU and our membership of it to his party colleagues as well, however. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) has today introduced a Bill questioning our membership of the EU and seeking a referendum on that, so the hon. Member for Orpington might want to do some proselytising on his own political side.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) raised a number of issues, in particular about the importance of education as the route out of poverty. I feel that strongly, too. When he was talking, I almost thought I was listening to events in parts of my constituency, such as schools getting more good GCSEs and more pupils going to university. These are all vital achievements. I was interested to hear about the successful mentoring scheme on the Tibbington estate in his constituency, and I hope it continues. I will certainly help to make the relevant Minister aware of it. It is also very good that schools are taking steps such as conducting the survey on local factors that my hon. Friend mentioned.
	Finally, my hon. Friend complimented the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. My sister is a speech and language therapist, so I should probably not pass on without complimenting it, too. Speech and language therapists do a vital job, and there is great support in this House for the work they do.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) began his speech rather amusingly by referring to the song, "The twelve days of Christmas", reflecting the musical theme we have had today. However, I am unsure where his series of complaints will take us. In fact, I am very glad that the Labour Government provided time to bring in the Hunting Act 2004; that was time well spent. I would like to pass on my sympathies to those affected by flooding, including those who were recently affected in Cumbria. Some streets in my constituency can flood when there is excess rain, and I know that we must keep thinking of the families and of the devastation that flooding causes. I am pleased that we are legislating to reduce the risks of serious flooding through the Flood and Water Management Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) talked about the demise of neo-liberalism. What he said was very interesting and we will have to review that by re-reading  Hansard. He will be glad to know that the Treasury said in the recent statement:
	"We will make first-class standards in public services not a privilege for the few but the right of all, by setting out-in health, education, policing and, in time, social care-new entitlements to high-quality public services, backed where appropriate by the force of law."-[ Official Report, 7 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 29.]
	That ties in very well with what he said.
	The hon. Members for Colchester (Bob Russell) and for Castle Point (Bob Spink) both raised the issue of school closures. I have found the schools adjudicator to be a useful stopping point, so it is a shame that the hon. Gentlemen cannot make the case there. However, we note and will pass on what they have said.
	A number of hon. Members mentioned the Building Schools for the Future programme-that very large capital investment programme for the next 50 years, which will provide world-class teaching. Even though there are difficulties in some places, that programme is very worth while.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) talked about Gary McKinnon, and we shall pass on his comments to the Home Secretary. However, I understand that Mr. McKinnon's lawyers have applied for judicial review of the further decision. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East also talked about Yemen, and I can tell him that the UK has contributed an additional £2 million to the UN appeal for emergency aid. I should add that there is a Yemeni community of 600 to 700 people in Eccles, so Yemen is a concern to us in Salford, as it is to him.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who is the most regular attender of these debates, raised a number of points. I shall not deal with the political ones, but on his point about the scrutiny of senior public servant pay, he might wish to note the smarter Government initiative, which was announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the fact that there will be publication and scrutiny of those very high salaries that he mentioned-most of us think that it is about time. I wish to commend the work of the all-party group on drugs misuse-some of the House's all-party groups do very worthwhile work-and the mention of the importance of seatbelts and animal welfare at this time of year.
	The contribution from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) ranged across a number of topics, including the Royal British Legion-which had already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley-housing, the Navy and the Audit Commission. I was sorry to hear that Portsmouth was not chosen to be a host city for the 2018 world cup-if we get it-but as Plymouth was chosen we do not have to be too concerned.
	I was also sorry to hear about the passing of the father of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). The hon. Gentleman went on to mention Afghanistan, the Royal Navy and the closure of hospital wards, and I shall write to him on those issues.
	The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) raised the issue of the closure of the Land Registry office in his constituency, which he redefined as not being in the south-east but in the east midlands. We will take those representations forward for him. I am sure that everyone will be saddened to hear of the case that he mentioned; it is right that those who are exonerated should not be treated unfairly, and I shall write to him about the case.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) raised a lot of issues relating to loca1 councils and bus fare funding, and I shall write to him about those.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) talked about the deeply shocking case in her constituency, which has provoked revulsion across the country. I know that she found it difficult not being able to talk about the case in this place as it was progressing. It is a very good thing that Plymouth city council has been able to support that community and the families. I expect that serious case review to be completed as soon as possible, and I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises the need for that. I shall ensure that I write to her about any other issues that she raised.
	The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) discussed inspirational teachers, and a very good thing that is too. I will have to move over all the other things that were mentioned, as I must come to the end of my contribution, but I shall write to hon. Members about those.
	We have much work to do when we return to the House after the Christmas recess. I should like to wish, as other hon. Members have done, a relaxing Christmas and a happy new year to all the staff who provide so much support to us throughout the year, particularly the staff of  Hansard, the staff in the Library, everyone in the Tea Room, the other catering staff, the cleaners, the Clerks of the Committee, the police, the Serjeant at Arms and her team, and the doorkeepers. We really appreciate the work that they all do to ensure that this place runs as smoothly as possible. A number of Members were successful in obtaining Royal Assent for their private Members' Bill last year, and we hope that many more will be. I also want to wish a merry Christmas and a happy new year to Members on both sides of the House, despite the political point scoring that we had, and finally to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker-

Mike Hancock: This petition is signed by a number of residents of Portsmouth, South, including Frances Vigay, Ella Mokhtari and many others. It deals with the Government's actions and responses in respect of the Badman report. I personally believe that the report went a lot further than it was meant to, and that it will cause long-term damage to home education.
	The petition states:
	The Petition persons resident in Portsmouth South,
	Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000586]